August 2011 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

Fwd: Lakoff: How to Rescue the American Dream from the GOP's Nightmare
by Michel Bauwens 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tikkun/Network of Spiritual Progressives < info(a)spiritualprogressives.org> Date: Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:43 PM Subject: Lakoff: How to Rescue the American Dream from the GOP's Nightmare To: Michelsub2004(a)gmail.com <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=t77OC6i%2Fp2FImaXGr%…> Lakoff: How to Rescue the American Dream from the GOP's Nightmare The Republicans are redefining "democracy"--but it's time to remember what the real dream of democracy meant. By George Lakoff and Glenn Smith *July 28, 2011* | LIKE THIS ARTICLE ? Join our mailing list: Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email. TAKE ACTION Change.org<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=dbkiDbjG37dbk5otid%2…> |Get Widget<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=mv47kkrb7XeuLGckN3Qg…> |Start an Online Petition<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=aftIMYdcnnjs8hEkt5M%…> � Democracy, in the American tradition, has been defined by a simple morality: We Americans care about our fellow citizens, we act on that care and build trust, and we do our best not just for ourselves, our families, our friends and our neighbors, but for our country, for each other, for people we have never met and never will meet. American democracy has, over our history, called upon citizens to share an equal responsibility to work together to secure a safe and prosperous future for their families and nation. This is the central work of our democracy and it is a public enterprise. This, the American Dream, is the dream of a functioning democracy. Public refers to people, acting together to provide what we all depend on: roads and bridges, public buildings and parks, a system of education, a strong economic system, a system of law and order with a fair and effective judiciary, dams, sewers, and a power grid, agencies to monitor disease, weather, food safety, clean air and water, and on and on. That is what we, as a people who care about each other, have given to each other. Only a free people can take up the necessary tasks, and only a people who trust and care for one another can get the job done. The American Dream is built upon mutual care and trust. Our tradition has not just been to share the tasks, but to share the tools as well. We come together to provide a quality education for our children. We come together to protect each other’s health and safety. We come together to build a strong, open and honest financial system. We come together to protect the institutions of democracy to guarantee that all who share in these responsibilities have an equal voice in deciding how they will be met. What this means is that there is no such thing as a “self-made” man or woman or business. No one makes it on their own. No matter how much wealth you amass, you depend on all the things the public has provided — roads, water, law enforcement, fire and disease protection, food safety, government research, and all the rest. The only question is whether you have paid your fair share for what we all have given you. We are now faced with a nontraditional, radical view of “democracy” coming from the Republican party. It says democracy means that nobody should care about anybody else, that democracy means only personal responsibility, not responsibility for anyone else, and it means no trust. If America accepts this radical view of democracy, then all that we have given each other in the past under traditional democracy will be lost: all that we have called public. Public roads and bridges: gone. Public schools: gone. Publicly funded police and firemen: gone. Safe food, air, and water: gone. Public health: gone. Everything that made America America, the crucial things that you and your family and your friends have taken for granted: gone. The democracy of care, shared responsibility and trust is the democracy of the American Dream. The democracy of no care, no shared responsibility, and no trust has produced the American Nightmare that so many of our citizens are living through. Nightmare it is, but there is no denying credit to Republicans for their skills at framing. The recent Republican “Contract from America,” for instance, begins with a statement of their moral principles. The recommendations are special cases of those principles. It is a strategic initiative. Instead of a laundry list, each recommendation is a special case of a general strategy — to defund our American government. Furthermore, they understand that about 20 percent of the electorate consists of people who are conservative in some ways and progressive in others. These are biconceptuals, sometimes referred to loosely by political professionals as “independents” or “swing voters.” Republicans know their job is to activate the conservative part of the brains of the biconceptuals, and they do that by sticking strictly to conservative moral principles and a clear conservative strategy. They never make the mistake of ignoring biconceptuals. Progressives too often fail to clearly state the moral principles behind the American tradition. Our arguments often sound like an abstract defense of distant “government” rather than a celebration of our people, our public, and the moral views that have defined our tradition and the real human beings who work every day to carry them out. There is a distinction between government as the administration of what we, as a public, provide each other, as opposed to government control. The Right wants to focus only upon control, not upon all that our tradition has given us. They do not just hide the vast positives, but they also hide the fact that governmental control, control over our daily lives, is more private than public. Private government for profit runs our lives – the health care we receive, the food we eat, the cars we can drive and the gas to fuel them, the news we get, loans for our homes, and on and on. Public government is for the benefit of all of us. Private (especially corporate) government is for the private profit of top management and stockholders. If you are concerned about your life being controlled for the benefit of others, look to the private sphere. The institution of government, however, is not the point. We must instead defend the moral principles we seek to advance through our American government — and through ethical business practices, voluntary associations etc. The traditional view of American democracy sees government as embodying these moral goals, to protect and empower everyone equally. If we are to successfully overcome the Republican demonizing of government and shared responsibility, we must restore faith in the mutual enterprise itself. Rather than simply defend government or government programs, we must positively advance the moral values of American democracy and the Dream, not the Nightmare. That is why we support a renewed focus on public life, a public life that includes all Americans. We should focus on the public nature of our shared responsibilities. Public life means meeting our shared responsibilities, caring for one another, and building the mutual trust upon which democracy depends. The recommendations below are special cases of these moral principles. They also represent a special case of a general strategy – to restore public life to American democracy. 1. We must return the public to our political system and end the corrupt influence of selfish interests that have abandoned our shared responsibilities. This means public finance of campaigns, strict enforcement of the highest ethical standards in public life, and protection of the sacred right to vote. 1. Our nation has vast national wealth: a huge continental landmass with wealth in minerals, agricultural land, forests, cities, beautiful places, as well as its public wealth, that is, the creative wealth of its educated citizenry and the collective wealth of all its citizens and corporations. We, the public, can put our nation’s vast wealth to use in creating jobs that make the lives of all better: building, educating, curing, and imagining. That is the Dream. To realize the Dream, we must end the Nightmare. 1. We must turn back the Right’s assault on public and higher education and meet our traditional commitment to education. Our children are tomorrow’s public. The future of democracy depends upon them. 1. We must rebuild our public infrastructure, a fancy term for the necessities we share: roads, bridges, dams, parks, fair grounds, water mains, sewers, and the power grid; public agencies that monitor disease, weather and food safety. Government that works for all of us can and should create jobs that serve us all by rebuilding our shared necessities. 1. We must come together publically to mutually ensure the health of all America. Health is not a private matter. It is a public one. 1. We must protect the prior earnings of American workers set aside in Social Security or private pensions. They have been earned through hard work and discipline. Taking these earnings away is theft, despite the Right’s use of the word “entitlements.” 1. A public of unequal voices is not a democratic public. We need a progressive tax system through which all Americans pay their fair share and a business ethics that fairly rewards those whose work creates productivity and profit. 1. We must put the American individual above abstract corporate entities. We must end “corporate personhood,” which gives transnational corporations a greater voice than individuals in our public deliberations. 1. We must end the move to “privatize” institutions through which we meet our shared responsibilities. When the public is removed, the private sphere takes over, charging more, and often creating unaccountable monopolies that bilk the public. Privatization of the public typically means that most citizens just pay more, often a lot more. 1. Discrimination of all kinds must be overcome. Public life depends upon recognition of our equal humanity. This is why Democracy is, and must remain, public. This is why America has traditionally been a beacon to the world. This is the example America has set. We dare not give it up. The alternative is the Nightmare. George Lakoff is the author of Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=qaMuWgVBQD%2Bigd9nFC…>' (Chelsea Green). He is professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley. Glenn Smith is the author of "The Politics of Deceit: Saving Freedom and Democracy from Extinction." He runs DriveDemocracy.org<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=vVOn6XaupryjINYDgsbD…> and the Texas Progress Council, a message and political research lab in Austin, Tex. Reprinted from Alternet.org Want to be part of the solution? Join the Network of Spiritual Progressives, sign the endorsement for the Global Marshall Plan and the ESRA Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--all at www.spiritualprogressives.org ------------------------------ web: www.spiritualprogressives.org<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=HgpDesoZU2BzZGBbj19h…> email: info(a)spiritualprogressives.org Click here to unsubscribe<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=zw7mXUOOf6qzCNTioiTd…> ------------------------------ Copyright © 2010 Network of Spiritual Progressives®. 2342 Shattuck Avenue, #1200 Berkeley, CA 94704 510-644-1200 Fax 510-644-1255 [image: empowered by Salsa] <http://www.salsalabs.com/?email> ** -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Fwd: New community bank in Belgium ....
by Michel Bauwens 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

via thomas grecO; ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thomas Greco <thg(a)mindspring.com> Date: 2011/8/11 On 08/08/2011 10:47 AM, val wrote: > In Belgium a community bank ? > > This is from today. > > Several "alternative" NGO's organisations such as Greenpeace-be, sections > of most unions,' third world organisations' and Netwerk Hefboom, existing > alternative banks, engaged in creating a "New Bank". > > They have put 50 000 euro together to an ordinary account with an attorney > by this creating the ' Cooperative Company 'New B.' > > > > Your comments are welcome... > > This is the mission text: > > La crise financière a aussi des conséquences positives. Elle nous force à > chercher une réponse à la question : comment faire mieux. Nous pensons à la > création d'une nouvelle banque (« NewBank » pour l'instant), une banque > coopérative pour le 21ème siècle : sociale, écologique et démocratique, par > et pour la société et les citoyens de ce pays. Nous sommes persuadés que la > participation importante de tous les intermédiaires assurera le succès de > cette NewBank. Vous trouvez ci-joint le mémorandum pour la NewBank. > > > Afin de vous convaincre d'adhérer d'emblée à ce projet, nous vous donnons > immédiatement l'essentiel de notre réflexion : > > > Avec la NewBank, les intermédiaires et les citoyens construisent une > alternative rentable, stable, crédible et transparente par rapport aux > grandes institutions financières ; > > Vous et vos membres disposerez de leur propre banque, car la NewBank est > dans les mains des coopérateurs ; > > La NewBank est, pour les organismes et les citoyens, la plaque tournante et > l'interface entre la sécurité de leur épargne et la réalisation de leurs > projets ; > > La NewBank ne garantit pas le rendement financier le plus élevé, mais > garantit la sécurité de l'épargne. Pas de placements spéculatifs dans des > produits dérivés, ni dans des activités dommageables pour la société ; > > La NewBank invite ses membres à innover pour répondre aux besoins non > couverts par les banques classiques. Pour ce faire, elle developpe avec les > intermédiaires des produits financiers nouveaux et des services sur mesure ; > > La NewBank veut être un levier économique pour les mouvements sociaux en > les aidant à mettre de nouveau l'argent et l'économie au service de la > société ; > > Très concrètement, cette banque durable est un instrument pour soutenir la > transition vers une économie sociale et écologique, dont nous avons > tellement besoin ; une économie qui reste dans les limites de ce que la > terre peut supporter, qui est socialement équitable, qui respecte les droits > des hommes et de la société et qui est économiquement efficace ; > > La NewBank veut éviter l'exclusion financière en garantissant l'accès aux > services financiers et à des formes appropriées de crédit ; > > La NewBank développe des nouvelles formes de community banking pour les > communautés locales et les groupes d'intérêt sectoriel, pour permettre une > utilisation directe de leur épargne dans leurs projets. > > > > Vision - mission - valeurs > > > Vision > > Les constructions financières hors contrôle ont causé des dommages > économiques et sociaux à échelle mondiale. Les banques coopératives et > caisses publiques d'épargne ont disparu du pays. Il y a une demande forte de > retrouver l'essentiel du métier de banque : récolter l'épargne et l'utiliser > pour soutenir les projets de l'économie réelle. Une nouvelle banque est > nécessaire pour assurer la transition vers l'économie sociale et écologique > dont nous avons besoin pour vivre en harmonie. Cela n'est possible que si > les citoyens et les mouvements sociaux disposent de leur propre institution > financière. > > > Mission > > Le projet NewBank porte sur la création d'une nouvelle banque coopérative > en Belgique, pour offrir un service simple, sûr et durable à tous les > citoyens, aux associations, aux mouvements sociaux et aux entrepreneurs. La > banque offre un éventail de produits et services suffisants pour être la > première banque du client. Elle veut être un soutien économique fort pour > les intermédiaires sociaux et pour le citoyen attentif. Elle vise une part > représentative du marché. > > La nouvelle banque est une banque d'ici, pour nous, à nous. > > > Valeurs > > Insertion sociale : la banque s'appuie sur l'apport de dizaines > d'associations et de dizaines de milliers de coopérateurs qui ensemble sont > clients et propriétaires de la banque. > > Simplicité : les clients et les coopérateurs comprennent la structure et > les produits de la banque. > > Sécurité : les moyens financiers sont investis dans l'économie réelle. Le > bénéfice n'est pas un but en soi, mais est le résultat d'une bonne gestion. > > Durabilité : la banque est attentive à tout ce qui favorise une attitude et > une économie sociales et durables. Des activités et des produits socialement > nuisibles sont proscrits. > > Transparence : tous les aspects de l'activité se passent dans la plus > grande transparence. > > Innovation : la banque développe avec ses coopérateurs des nouveaux > produits et des solutions innovantes pour une économie sociale et > écologique. > > Participation : la banque cherche des solutions originales pour que la > participation des coopérants soit réelle. > > Honnêteté : partage équilibré des bénéfices entre les dépôts et les > coopérateurs. > > Inclusion : l'objectif est un service financier universel et l'accès > approprié au crédit pour tous. > > Sobriété : l'environnement de la banque sera sobre et la politique de > rémunération est le reflet de cette sobriété. > > Diversité : beaucoup d'attention pour les différences afin d'être > véritablement une banque pour tous. > > Proximité : la banque veille à être proche des personnes. > > > > > Activités > > > Segments de marché > > La banque veut être la première banque des résidents en Belgique, > particuliers, associations, administrations et entreprises qui ont besoin > d'un service bancaire simple. > > > Produits et services > > Tous peuvent s'adresser à la banque pour un compte à vue, des paiements, > une épargne en toute sécurité, des investissements durables, des emprunts > sur mesure pour particuliers et des crédits pour entreprises. L'accent est > mis sur des initiatives durables. La banque développera des formes > originales de community banking. Elle développera des produits innovants > pour répondre à des besoins sociétaux spécifiques. > > La banque se doit d'être rentable. Elle offre un ensemble cohérent de > services à des conditions qui en font la banque préférée d'un large public, > celui qui, auparavant, se sentait à l'aise chez des banques publiques ou > coopératives. > > > Canaux de distribution > > La banque sera en premier lieu une banque on-line, avec un site très > fonctionnel, accompagné par un service gsm, un call center de qualité, une > direction et un point de contact à Bruxelles et un réseau de personnes de > contact à un niveau local, pour la plupart établies dans les organisations > et associations coopératrices. > > > > Structure et gestion > > > La banque est une société coopérative dotée d'une structure ouverte et > transparente. Avec les partenaires, nous chercherons comment faire en sorte > que les coopérateurs aient réellement leur mot à dire : en effet, nous ne > voulons pas de membres sans aucun pouvoir de décision. A plus long terme, > nous pourrions envisager une fédération de banques coopératives locales > et/ou sectorielles. > > Ce pilier participatif doit trouver son équilibre avec des gestionnaires > visionnaires et avisés, professionnels et expérimentés, qui s'appuient sur > un bon encadrement technique et sont ensemble garants d'une gestion efficace > et de l'engagement social. > > > > > . > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kristen Ragusin" <kragusin(a)gmail.com> > To: <beyond-money-group(a)**googlegroups.com<beyond-money-group(a)googlegroups.com> > > > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 7:23 PM > Subject: Re: The Beyond Money Game > > > Hi Michael, > > Did you add me too? > > Thanks, > Kristen > (sorry reading emails on phone so I might be missing info) > > Sent from my iPhone. > > On Aug 8, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Michael Zafiris <zafiris.michael(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > awesome. >> I started a private wiki and added Dan and Paul. >> Anyone who wants to "play" and help design the game, let me know so that I >> give them edit access to the specification. >> >> > > -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] theory of oligopoly (1838)
by Michel Bauwens 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

thanks dante, Michel On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson < dante.monson(a)gmail.com> wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium#History > > A version of the Nash equilibrium concept was first used by Antoine > Augustin Cournot <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Augustin_Cournot> in > his theory of oligopoly (1838). In Cournot's theory, firms choose how much > output to produce to maximize their own profit. However, the best output for > one firm depends on the outputs of others. A Cournot equilibrium<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cournot_equilibrium> occurs > when each firm's output maximizes its profits given the output of the other > firms, which is a pure strategy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_strategy> Nash > Equilibrium. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cournot_equilibrium > > It has the following features: > > - There is more than one firm and all firms produce a homogeneous<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Homogeneous> > product <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_%28business%29>, i.e. > there is no product differentiation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_differentiation> > ; > - Firms do not cooperate, i.e. there is no collusion<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion> > ; > - Firms have market power <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power>, > i.e. each firm's output decision affects the good's price; > - The number of firms is fixed; > - Firms compete in quantities, and choose quantities simultaneously; > - The firms are economically rational and act strategically<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory>, > usually seeking to maximize profit given their competitors' decisions. > > > > -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

2 4

Fwd: Israel's Tent Cities--a Movement Suddenly Emerges. Perspectives from Uri Avnery, Zeev Sternhell, & Bernard Avishai
by Michel Bauwens 10 Aug '11

10 Aug '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tikkun <magazine(a)tikkun.org> Date: Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 8:08 PM Subject: Israel's Tent Cities--a Movement Suddenly Emerges. Perspectives from Uri Avnery, Zeev Sternhell, & Bernard Avishai To: Michelsub2004(a)gmail.com *Three perspectives on the amazing growth of tent cities of protest across Israeli society.* *Uri Avnery* *August 6, 2011* * * * **“How Goodly Are Thy Tents”* * * *FIRST OF all, a warning.* * * *Tent cities are springing up all over Israel. A social protest movement is gathering momentum. At some point in the near future, it may endanger the right-wing government.* * * *At that point, there will be a temptation – perhaps an irresistible temptation – to “warm up the borders”. To start a nice little war. Call on the youth of Israel, the same young people now manning (and womanning) the tents, to go and defend the fatherland.* * * *Nothing easier than that. A small provocation, a platoon crossing the border “to prevent the launching of a rocket”, a fire fight, a salvo of rockets – and lo and behold, a war. End of protest.* * * *In September, just a few weeks from now, the Palestinians intend to apply to the UN for the recognition of the State of Palestine. Our politicians and generals are chanting in unison that this will cause a crisis – Palestinians in the occupied territories may rise in protest against the occupation, violent demonstrations may ensue, the army will be compelled to shoot – and lo and behold, a war. End of protest.* * * * * *THREE WEEKS ago I was interviewed one morning by a Dutch journalist. At the end, she asked: “You are describing an awful situation. The extreme right-wing controls the Knesset and is enacting abominable anti-democratic laws. The people are indifferent and apathetic. There is no opposition to speak of. And yet you exude a spirit of optimism. How come?”* * * *I answered that I have faith in the people of Israel. Contrary to appearances, we are a sane people. Some time, somewhere, a new movement will arise and change the situation. It may happen in a week, in a month, in a year. But it will come.* * * *On that very same day, just a few hours later, a young woman called Daphne Liff, with an improbable man’s hat perched on her flowing hair, said to herself: “Enough!” * * * *She had been evicted by her landlady because she couldn’t afford the rent. She set up a tent in Rothschild Boulevard, a long, tree-lined thoroughfare in the center of Tel Aviv. The news spread through facebook, and within an hour, dozens of tents had sprung up. Within a week, there were some 400 tents, spread out in a double line more than a mile long. * * * *Similar tent-cities sprang up in Jerusalem, Haifa and a dozen smaller towns. The next Saturday, tens of thousands joined protest marches in Tel Aviv and elsewhere. Last Saturday, they numbered more than 150,000. * * * *This”] has now become the center of Israeli life. The Rothschild tent city has assumed a life of its own –a cross between Tahrir Square and Woodstock, with a touch of Hyde Park corner thrown in for good measure. The mood is indescribably upbeat, masses of people come to visit and return home full of enthusiasm and hope. Everybody can feel that something momentous is happening. * * * *Seeing the tents, I was reminded of the words of Balaam, who was sent by the king of Moab to curse the children of Israel in the desert (Numbers 24) and instead exclaimed: “How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob, and thy tabernacles, Oh Israel!” * * * * * *IT ALL started in a remote little town in Tunisia, when an unlicensed market vendor was arrested by a policewoman. It seems that in the ensuing altercation, the woman struck the man in the face, a terrible humiliation for a Tunisian man. He set himself on fire. What followed is history: the revolution in Tunisia, regime change in Egypt, uprisings all over the Middle East. * * * *The Israeli government saw all this with growing concern – but they didn’t imagine that there might be an effect in Israel itself. Israeli society, with its ingrained contempt for Arabs, could hardly be expected to follow suit.* * * *But follow suit it did. People in the street spoke with growing admiration of the Arab revolt. It showed that people acting together could dare to confront leaders far more fearsome than our bumbling Binyamin Netanyahu. * * * *Some of the most popular posters on the tents were “Rothschild corner Tahrir” and, in a Hebrew rhyme, “Tahrir – Not only in Cahir” – Cahir being the Hebrew version of al-Cahira, the Arabic name for Cairo. And also: “Mubarak, Assad, Netanyahu”. * * * *In Tahrir Square, the central slogan was “The People Want to Overthrow the Regime”. In conscious emulation, the central slogan of the tent cities is “The People Want Social Justice”.* * * * * *WHO ARE these people? What exactly do they want?* * * *It started with a demand for “Affordable Housing”. Rents in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and elsewhere are extremely high, after years of Government neglect. But the protest soon engulfed other subjects: the high price of foodstuffs and gasoline, the low wages . The ridiculously low salaries of physicians and teachers, the deterioration of the education and health services. There is a general feeling that 18 tycoons control everything, including the politicians. (Politicians who dared to show up in the tent cities were chased away.) They could have quoted an American saying: “Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.” * * * *A selection of the slogans gives an impression: * *We want a welfare state!* *Fighting for the home!* *Justice, not charity!* *If the government is against the people, the people are against the government!* *Bibi, this is not the US Congress, you will not buy us with empty words!* *If you don’t join our war, we shall not fight your wars!* *Give us our state back!* *Three partners with three salaries cannot pay for three rooms!* *The answer to privatization: revolution!* *We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, we are slaves to Bibi in Israel!* *I have no other homeland!* *Bibi, go home, we'll pay for the gas!* *Overthrow swinish capitalism!* *Be practical, demand the impossible!* * * * * *WHAT IS missing in this array of slogans? Of course: the occupation, the settlements, the huge expenditure on the military. * * * *This is by design. The organizers, anonymous young men and women – mainly women – are very determined not to be branded as “leftists”. They know that bringing up the occupation would provide Netanyahu with an easy weapon, split the tent-dwellers and derail the protests.* * * *We in the peace movement know and respect this. All of us are exercising strenuous self-restraint, so that Netanyahu will not succeed in marginalizing the movement and depicting it as a plot to overthrow the right-wing government. * * * *As I wrote in an article in Haaretz: No need to push the protesters. In due course, they will reach the conclusion that the money for the major reforms they demand can only come from stopping the settlements and cutting the huge military budget by hundreds of billions – and that is possible only in peace. (To help them along, we published a large ad, saying: “It’s quite simple – money for the settlements OR money for housing, health services and education”).* * * *Voltaire said that “the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give it to the other”. This government takes the money of decent citizens to give it to the settlers.* * * * * *WHO ARE they, these enthusiastic demonstrators, who seemingly have come from nowhere? * * * *They are the young generation of the middle class, who go out to work, take home average salaries and “cannot finish the month”, as the Israeli expression goes. Mothers who cannot go to work because they have nowhere to leave their babies. University students who cannot get a room in the dormitories or afford accomodation in the city. And especially young people who want to marry but cannot afford to buy an apartment, even with the help of their parents. (One tent bore the sign: “Even this tent was bought by our parents”)* * * *All this in a flourishing economy, which has been spared the pains of the world-wide economic crisis and boasts an enviable unemployment rate of just 5%.* * * *If pressed, most of the protesters would declare themselves to be “social-democrats”. They are the very opposite of the Tea Party in the US: they want a welfare state, they blame privatization for many of their ills, they want the government to interfere and to act. Whether they want to admit it or not, the very essence of their demands and attitudes is classically leftist (the term created in the French Revolution because the adherents of these ideals sat on the left side of the speaker in the National Assembly). They are the essence of what Left means - (though in Israel, the terms “Left” and “Right” have until now been largely identified with questions of war and peace). * * * * * *WHERE WILL it go from here?* * * *No one can say. When asked about the impact of the French Revolution, Zhou Enlai famously said: “It’s too early to say.” Here we are witnessing an event still in progress, perhaps even still beginning.* * * *It has already produced a huge change. For weeks now, the public and the media have stopped talking about the borders, the Iranian bomb and the security situation. Instead, the talk is now almost completely about the social situation, the minimum wage, the injustice of indirect taxes, the housing construction crisis.* * * *Under pressure, the amorphous leadership of the protest has drawn up a list of concrete demands. Among others: government building of houses for rent, raising taxes on the rich and the corporations, free education from the age of three months [sic], a raise in the salary of physicians, police and fire-fighters, school classes of no more than 21 pupils, breaking the monopolies controlled by a few tycoons, and so on. * * * *So where from here? There are many possibilities, both good and bad. * * * *Netanyahu can try to buy off the protest with some minor concessions – some billions here, some billions there. This will confront the protesters with the choice of the Indian boy in the movie about becoming a millionaire: take the money and quit, or risk all on answering yet another question.* * * *Or: the movement may continue to gather momentum and force major changes, such as shifting the burden from indirect to direct taxation. * * * *Some rabid optimists (like myself) may even dream of the emergence of a new authentic political party to fill the gaping void on the left side of the political spectrum.* * * * * *I STARTED with a warning, and I must end with another one: this movement has raised immense hopes. If it fails, it may leave behind an atmosphere of despondency and despair – a mood that will drive those who can to seek a better life somewhere else. * * * * ************************ - Published 01:25 05.08.11 - Latest update 01:25 05.08.11 From protest to power The young demonstrators would do well to remember May 1968 in Europe; a protest that does not find immediate political expression is destined to disintegrate. By Zeev Sternhell<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=r9RN%2FvqZ%2Bj7KexSx…> In these times of hope and anticipation, it is difficult not to wonder what form the protest might have taken, and what results it might already have achieved, if there had been a large and authentic social-democratic party here with a labor union worthy of the name, at its side. Indeed a spontaneous uprising that does not find political expression very soon, and does not threaten those who are in power, will of necessity have very limited achievements. Even Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu understands that when there is no opposition with an ideology of structural social change, and which is capable of garnering electoral support for a comprehensive national economic program, the danger facing him and his party is negligible. The truth is that the protesters themselves have already presented him with a way out. His representatives will anoint the protest leaders with pure oil, will set up teams and present ideas, will throw them a few bones and then will move to the area where there is no greater expert than Netanyahu: drawing out time and making promises that no one intends to keep. The real problem, however, is not the government but rather the political elite. Except for a small number of politicians on the center-left, like Knesset member Shelly Yachimovich (Labor ), most of the political leadership is partner to the blind belief in the unique qualities of a free market. There were indeed people outside the political arena who for decades contended that a free market creates no less poverty and misery than wealth and welfare; there were those who believed that poverty is not some kind of natural phenomenon but rather something created by man. But all of them were considered "populist." There were people who saw in the state a tool for correcting distortions and supplying cheap and good-quality services to the entire population, but they were denounced as wanting to return to the 1950s. Therefore the young demonstrators would do well to remember May 1968 in Europe. Beyond the obvious differences, there is a common denominator: a protest that does not find immediate political expression is destined to disintegrate. New forces that were not involved in politics until now could play a key role. They could break the neoliberal consensus and to be the motivating force behind the creation of a broad opposition front that brings together all those who recognize the need to address the chronic ills of Israeli society - and not just deal with the milk cartels. A front of that kind would have place for all those who shy away from the neoconservative "economy of compassion" which is the basis of the impure alliance between the government, the Histadrut labor federation and the people with big money. Indeed a protest against the obstructed social horizon of the middle class is not out of touch with numerous other problems. In order to create a society that is more egalitarian and just a change is needed in the political balance of power. The protesters will be able to achieve substantive results only by linking up with all the forces that are opposed to the present government, but not to the settlers who are its pillars of support. It will not be enough to demonstrate and march, especially since the marchers will tire a long time before the politicians and before the Yesha Council of settlements. Therefore, after their preliminary success, they will have to begin the process of dull political work and building up a force that can compete in the next elections. The tent dwellers may be able to provide part of the leadership and to refresh the lines. The hope that was born in the Rothschild tent city must not be allowed to expire in the argument over VAT accounts. Unless an ideological and moral force arises that can be an alternative to the destructiveness of neo-liberalism, the life expectancy of this welcome protest will be as long as the length of the Israeli summer. * ************************************** - Published 09:49 05.08.11 - Latest update 09:49 05.08.11 Memo to the marchers The answer is that the atmosphere on Planet Netanyahu is slowly suffocating us. By Bernard Avishai Are our economic problems a result of the absence of peace? If we continue with the peculiar version of “Zionism” that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu represents, are things bound to get worse? Yes. Hell, yes. But before we connect the dots, a word of caution: Israel’s high degree of inequality is not, by itself, proof of economic injustice so much as of how globalized the Israeli economy is. Our growth is driven by high-technology exports in software, value-added components, advanced medical devices and other “solutions.” So we are bound to have a social profile more like Silicon Valley than a manufacturing city like Wolfsburg, Germany. I could work a lifetime teaching at a business school and not amass the fortune of one former student, who just sold his start-up to Getty Images for over $20 million. Bless him. The real question is whether those of us who do not have a shot at a fancy technology jackpot have growing incomes and an improving quality of life. Does what we earn and pay taxes on leave us with enough for essential things like higher education, medical care, cars and fuel − and, yes, housing? If not, why not? The answer is that the atmosphere on Planet Netanyahu is slowly suffocating us: • The settlement project was, and is, insufferably expensive. Upwards of $20 billion have been spent on settlements and infrastructure in occupied territory, and that doesn’t include the costs of securing them. Meanwhile, traffic on the coastal plain long ago graduated from heavy to infuriating; mass transit projects in major metropolitan areas are constantly postponed. • The industries that liberated Palestinians will focus on, and draw regional investment to, are precisely those that lower-income Israelis are bound to benefit from: tourism, construction, retail, food processing. Israel and Palestine are one business ecosystem. Israel could generate another $8 billion in GDP just from doubling its number of tourists from 3 to 6 million a year. (Florence gets 12 million.) • One-sixth of the government budget goes to defense, and that fraction is creeping up to incorporate new weapons systems. Social services are inevitably trimmed. Moreover, the ratio of national debt to GDP is stuck at around 75-80 percent, not unmanageable as long as interest rates remain low and growth rates remain high, say, 4-5 percent a year. But if Israel were to enter periods of lower growth − as would be inescapable with greater political isolation, that is, with Israeli start-ups facing new obstacles to building relationships with European corporations − it would be impossible to outpace the social tensions we now see or the discontent in the Israeli-Arab community. • Educational infrastructure is in serious decline. Critical preschool is crushingly expensive for young couples. High-school classrooms average 30-40 students. University budgets have been slashed. Yet the Netanyahu government is focusing on the “Zionism” content of the curriculum, not on development of critical thinking in a science-driven economy. • The health-care system is in crisis, yet Israeli medical training is world-class. Medical tourism, especially from neighboring Arab countries and the Gulf, could rejuvenate the Israeli medical realm overnight. • Participation in the Israeli workforce is among the lowest of OECD countries, about 56 percent as compared, say, with 68 percent in Japan, which is among the highest. This is largely because of the long-standing policy of the Likud and Company − a policy Yossi Sarid, when he was education minister, tried to change − to keep ultra-Orthodox yeshivas on the dole. • The major driver of high land prices is the Israel Lands Administration, a throwback to the old Zionist Jewish National Fund ‏(whose lands still constitute about a fifth of the ILA’s holdings‏), managing roughly 90 percent of Israel’s land for “the Jewish people.” Privatization and auctioning of land is necessary to bring the cost of housing down. But this would mean that Arab towns would be able to buy much more land for their own development, which is anathema to the Israeli right. • Ginning up the cost of flats themselves, especially in Tel Aviv’s and Jerusalem’s core, are absentee owners: Wealthy Diaspora Jews who − excited by the right’s pandering, and encouraged to think of Israel as a kind of metaphysical theme park − drive out younger buyers and renters. • Incessant war tension, among other things, has degraded the quality of life. A million Israeli Jews live abroad today, disproportionately well-educated people who could be founding companies at home. • Last, though not at all least, is Netanyahu’s freewheeling approach to market regulation − so much like that of American Republicans, and masked by ultra-nationalist distractions. This means concentration of ownership in Israel: The wealthiest 16 families own 20 percent of the top 500 companies. Conglomerates take super-profits from, in effect, monopolies in banking, telecom, food retailing, media and so forth. But they are also over-leveraged, and highly invested in real estate. Let the air out of the housing market − by releasing a great deal more ILA land, for example − and some will find themselves under water, kicking off a recession. Until we break them up, we must live with their need for higher national growth rates than can be achieved with a continuing occupation. Without peace, in short, the “start-up nation” is bound to run down. And the marches prove that the young of Tel Aviv − with global experiences and cosmopolitan instincts − do not live in a bubble. It is Netanyahu and the right, settlers and the Orthodox and Russian Putinists, who live in a bubble. God willing, the streets of Tel Aviv will burst it even before the streets of Ramallah do. *Bernard Avishai is the author, most recently, of “The Hebrew Republic.” He writes for numerous magazines, including Harper’s and The New York Times Magazine. He teaches business at the Hebrew University and blogs at TPM Cafe and Bernard Avishai Dot Com.* ------------------------------ unsubscribe: Click here<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=qC2bV7D2IyDyinW9AzDK…> if you are having trouble unsubscribing Click here <kay(a)tikkun.org> Copyright 2010 Tikkun Magazine. Tikkun is a registered trademark. 2342 Shattuck Avenue, #1200 Berkeley, CA 94704 510-644-1200 Fax 510-644-1255 [image: empowered by Salsa] <http://www.salsalabs.com/?email> ** -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] Recommended blogs, climate collaboration and event in London
by Michel Bauwens 10 Aug '11

10 Aug '11

thanks Mark, I'm aware of Greyson's work, see also: http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Policy#James_Greyson ; http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Policy#Policy_Frameworks On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Mark Petz <ravenwyn(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > DOn't know if this man has anything useful - but I think he can better > structure / host his ideas! > > m > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 5:33 PM, James Greyson via WiserEarth < > no-reply(a)wiserearth.org> wrote: > >> James Greyson<http://www.wiserearth.org/user/blindspotter?utm_source=userAlert&utm_medium…>sent you the following message on WiserEarth: >> --- >> >> Thanks for taking part in Fixing Systems Not Symptoms! Here's is the >> latest... >> Blogs Check out mikeabkin<http://www.wiserearth.org/user/mikeabkin?utm_source=userAlert&utm_medium=Em…>'s >> new page in the group with links to his super blog Peace Systems >> Thoughts: Selected Items from The Green Pen<http://www.wiserearth.org/article/cf5c76ff1abc4f535591b73f526dc025/group/sy…> >> >> Also my 'flipping paradigms' blog<http://www.wiserearth.org/resource/view/37746bc54e4a9c72e342e5f9404f865d/gr…>on wiserearth. And twitter notes about how to change paradigms fast. >> http://twitter.com/blindspotting >> Open Space Event I'll be presenting at an exciting 'Co-creating resilient >> communities, organisations and societies' open space event in London 7th >> Oct. I'll be speaking about the revolution of solving all global problems as >> a whole system - but most of the day is for learning and co-creating >> together. This is being organised by Andrea Gewessler from Change that >> Matters. >> http://www.changethatmatters.co.uk/pdf/Resilience%20invite2011.pdf<http://www.changethatmatters.co.uk/pdf/Resilience%20invite2011.pdf> >> Please join me there! >> Join in a climate of collaboration! I bet you have some great ideas about >> grappling with climate change. Can you sketch it out in 140 characters or >> less? Then come to MIT's Climate CoLab and add your idea as a pitch to start >> a proposal that could end up under the noses of policy-makers and informing >> a future international climate deal! >> >> Click here <http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/5> to >> add an idea for a global plan. >> Click here <http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/6> to >> add an idea for a national plan. >> >> Check out all the proposals so far here<http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans>. >> And please take a moment to click 'support' on my Fix the System<http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/4/planId/13801>proposal :-) >> >> Any feedback or questions please get in touch with me. >> >> Thanks, James Greyson (blindspotter<http://www.wiserearth.org/user/blindspotter/section/main?utm_source=userAle…> >> ) >> >> >> This message was sent from the *Fixing Systems Not Symptoms<http://www.wiserearth.org/group/systems?utm_source=userAlert&utm_medium=Ema…> >> * group. >> >> >> Reply to this message from James Greyson<http://www.wiserearth.org/user/Markuspetz/section/messages/messageView/inbo…> >> >> --- >> To change your email settings, go to: >> Email notification settings<http://www.wiserearth.org/user/settings?utm_source=userAlert&utm_medium=Ema…> >> >> Is this message spam? >> Report this message as spam<http://www.wiserearth.org/msg/reportSpam/501865/bf39141345852959238c915ba8f…> >> >> > > -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

hard resilience thinking from Vinay Gupta
by Michel Bauwens 10 Aug '11

10 Aug '11

hi franco, could you present this to our blog, with right post-date, see http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/other/the-gupta-state-failure-managemen… -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

3 3

lack of sharing in OSE ..?
by Michel Bauwens 10 Aug '11

10 Aug '11

hi eli, perhaps you can answer this critique, to what degree is it true? see: davidc <david(a)indigo.uk.to> Aug 08 02:50PM -0700 ^<?ui=2&view=bsp&ver=ohhl4rw8mbn4#131ae8872498514d_digest_top> As regards opensourceecology.org, I would need to study Marcin Jakubowski's proposals more closely before venturing comment, but - given their verbosity - I can't promise that will happen soon. From what I have read about the project in the past, however, I have never witnessed anything resembling the sort of commitment to sharing and mutual aid that I would expect or hope for. The idea of mutual aid and support needs to be at its _core_ - it can't be an appendix. -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Contact Summit Related Projects Seeking Funding
by Michel Bauwens 10 Aug '11

10 Aug '11

Topic: Contact Summit Related Projects Seeking Funding<http://groups.google.com/group/building-a-distributed-decentralized-interne…> Suresh Fernando <suresh2323(a)gmail.com> Aug 09 10:44AM -0700 ^<#131b12fe2c1a6a83_digest_top> Hey Everyone, Further to my email yesterday relating sponsorship for Contact, I am interested in exploring creative new ways to engage funding sources. Since the larger objective of CONTACT is to bring about a better world and many of us are working on projects that are aligned with this, I want to explore funding strategies that align the interests of CONTACT, smaller projects and funding sources. How exactly this might work is not clear to me but since I have started to reach out to funding sources, it makes sense for me to get a better sense of the projects that we are working on that require capital. Also, as many of you may know, there is an interesting discussion shaping up in the Next Edge Facebook Group<http://www.facebook.com/groups/120497731371323/>in which I have just started a document to track Contact Projects Seeking Funding< http://www.facebook.com/groups/120497731371323/doc/?id=140023622752067>. Please fill in the details if you are planning on attending Contact, are a part of an early stage project seeking funding, and are interested in exploring creative funding strategies related to Contact. We all need to be creative and collaborative in our efforts to bring about a better world! Let me know if you have any comments or questions! Regards, -- *Suresh Fernando * BLOG <http://sureshf.posterous.com/>, YOUTUBE<http://www.youtube.com/my_videos?feature=mhum>, OK WEBSITE, <http://openkollab.com>OK FAN PAG<http://www.facebook.com/aprilrinne#%21/openkollab> E <http://goog_1610308617>, OK GROUP< http://groups.google.ca/group/openkollab>, OK-WE <http://www.wiserearth.org/group/openkollab>, PHILOSOPHY, <http://sureshfernando.wordpress.com> TWITTER, <http://twitter.com/sureshf> FACEBOOK, <http://facebook.com/suresh.fernando>WOTW FAN PAGE< http://www.facebook.com/tedxvancouver?v=wall#%21/pages/The-Way-Of-The-Warri… > LINKEDIN< http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=412718&authType=name&authToken=GrUl… >, SLIDESHARE <http://www.slideshare.net/sureshf> * *-------*ProM: Climate Change Project Matching System------* Project Description: http://cotw.cc/wiki/Project_Matching To Join:* *https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/cc-pms* *Workstreams: http://cotw.cc/wiki/CC-PMS_etherpad_index -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Fwd: The Joint International Semantic Technology Conference (JIST 2011)
by Michel Bauwens 09 Aug '11

09 Aug '11

semantic web for p2p included in program below ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:20 PM Subject: The Joint International Semantic Technology Conference (JIST 2011) To: WOICT(a)googlegroups.com, barcamp-chiang-mai(a)googlegroups.com, Open Source Thailand <opensourcethailand(a)googlegroups.com> Please consider submitting or circulating this cfp to friends and colleagues in Asia, Apologies for cross-posting! **************************************************************** * CALL FOR PAPERS * The Joint International Semantic Technology Conference (JIST 2011) * * http://www.jist-conference.org/JIST2011/ * * *******Deadline: 15 Aug, 2011****** * * * December 4-7, 2011 * Hangzhou, China * ************************************************************************ The Joint International Semantic Technology Conference (JIST) is a regional federation of Semantic Web related conferences. The mission of JIST is to bring together researchers in disciplines related to the semantic technology from across the Asia-Pacific Region. JIST 2011 incorporates the Asian Semantic Web Conference 2011 (ASWC 2011) and Chinese Semantic Web Conference 2011 (CSWC 2011). * Topics of Interest Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: ** Applications of the Semantic Web -Applications with clear lessons learned or evaluations -Semantic Web for large scale applications -Semantic Web for desktops or personal information management -Semantic Web for eGovernment -Semantic Web for life sciences and healthcare -Semantic Web for multimedia, sensors, and situational awareness -Semantic Web for P2P, services, agents, grids, and middleware -Semantic Web for software and systems engineering -Semantic Web in other areas -Mobile Semantic Web ** Management of Semantic Web Data -Languages, tools, and methodologies for representing and managing Semantic Web data -Database, IR, and AI technologies for the Semantic Web -Search, query, integration, and analysis on the Semantic Web -Robust and scalable knowledge management and reasoning on the Web -Machine learning and information extraction for the Semantic Web -Cleaning, assurance, and provenance of Semantic Web data, services, and processes -Principles and applications of very large Semantic Web data bases -Semantic wikis ** Ontology and Reasoning -Ontology modelling, reuse, extraction, and evolution -Ontology mapping, merging, and alignment -Ontology evaluation -Searching and ranking ontologies -Reasoning over Semantic Web data -New formalisms (such as probabilistic approaches) -Lightweight semantics (linked data, microformats, etc.) **Social Semantic Web -Social networks and processes on the Semantic Web -Semantic Web technologies for collaboration and cooperation -Representing and reasoning about trust, privacy, and security ** User Interfaces to the Semantic Web -Interacting with Semantic Web data -Semantic Web content creation and annotation -Mashing up Semantic Web data and processes -Novel interaction paradigms aimed at linked data -Semantic web applications to Web 2.0 sites -Natural language Semantic Web interfaces -Information visualisation of Semantic Web data * Submission Submissions to JIST 2011 should describe original, significant research on the semantic technologies. Submissions to JIST 2011 are expected to present their claimed contribution, with clear evidence to support their claims. All submissions will be critically reviewed by at least three members of the program committee. To assess submissions, reviewers will judge their relevance to semantic technologies, their originality, the technical soundness of their proposed approach and the readability of the submission. Submissions must be in PDF format, using the style of the Springer Publications format for Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS). Submissions must be no longer than 12 pages. Submissions that exceed this limit may be rejected without review. JIST 2011 will not accept submissions that are under review for or have already been published in or accepted for publication in a journal or another conference. All submissions be submitted via EasyChair at http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=jist2011 Accepted papers will be distributed to conference attendees and also published by Springer in the printed conference proceedings. At least one author of each accepted paper must register for the conference and present the paper there. * Important Dates - Submissions due: August 15, 2011, 23:59 (11:59pm) Hawaii time - Notification: September 22, 2011, 23:59 (11:59pm) Hawaii time - Camera ready: October 3, 2011, 23:59 (11:59pm) Hawaii time - Conference dates: December 4-7, 2011 * Organisation ** General Chairs - Ian Horrocks - Riichiro Mizoguchi - Zhaohui Wu ** Program Chairs - Huajun Chen - Hong-Gee Kim - Juanzi Li - Jeff Z. Pan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web, Online Information, Collaboration and Knowledge Thailand" group. To post to this group, send email to woict(a)googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to woict+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/woict?hl=en. -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

keimform.de: The Emergence of Benefit-driven Production
by Christian Siefkes 09 Aug '11

09 Aug '11

URL: http://www.keimform.de/2011/benefit-driven-production/ The following paper was written for the Proceedings <http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-739/> of the 6th Annual Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon 2011) <http://okcon.org/2011> which took place about a month before in Berlin. It is also available in PDF format <http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-739/paper_9.pdf>. Abstract -------- The free software and free culture movements have radically changed the ways of producing software and knowledge goods. In many cases, participation in such project is benefit-driven rather than profit-driven. Participants get involved in order to realize some practical or social benefit, not because of monetary gains. Another difference from market- and firm-based production is that peer production is non-hierarchical: people voluntarily cooperate as peers; there are no fixed employer/employee or client/contractor relationships. And peer production is based on commons: goods which are jointly developed and maintained by a community and which are shared according to community-defined rules. Peer production is not just about producing knowledge: Hackerspaces and Fab Labs are the first forerunners of a commons-based production infrastructure. While commons-based peer production reaches beyond capitalism, the preconditions of its development are created by capitalism itself. The paradoxical relationship of capitalism to human labor leads to developments that might make the concept of labor (as we know it today) obsolete, and with it capitalism itself. Keywords: peer production, benefit-driven production, commons, commonism, stigmergy, capitalism Benefit-driven Production ------------------------- The *free software* and *free culture movements* have radically changed the ways of producing software and knowledge goods. These changes have caused some markets--such as those for Internet software, programming tools and encyclopedias--to shrink considerably or disappear altogether. These areas have become dominated by free programs such as Apache, Firefox, WordPress, non-proprietary programming languages such as Python, open development environments such as Eclipse, and by the free Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia. They have largely driven out competing offers which (as usual in capitalism) are only available for sale. Sometimes, free software is produced by companies that use it to indirectly make money, e.g. by selling support, documentation, or suitable hardware. But many projects are driven by communities of people that contribute voluntarily and without pay. Participants may be motivated by the desire to use the software they help creating or they may simply enjoy doing what they do. Others participate in order to improve their knowledge, to demonstrate their skills, or to give something back to the community (Lakhani and Wolf 2005). Free software and free culture projects are thus frequently *benefit-driven* rather than *profit-driven*: Participants get involved in order to realize some practical or social benefit (getting useful software, learning, getting community recognition, doing something pleasurable), not because of monetary gains. Modern, neoclassical economy theory sees companies as a means of reducing so-called transaction costs (Coase 1937). As a company owner, I can assign tasks to my staff instead of having to buy and negotiate each small service individually. The employees benefit by knowing in advance how much they will earn, instead of having to sell themselves day by day in the market, with uncertain results. But they have to accept subordinate positions in a hierarchy and must follow the orders of the management. Market relations, on the other hand, take part between actors who are formally (though often not actually) equal, but they are always merely functional: I'm not interested in the others as human beings, I merely see them as potential trading partners, potential buyers and sellers. Standard neoclassical theory doesn't know ways of interaction beyond the market and the firm, but the communities of people who produce on the basis of voluntary cooperation indicate that it missed something. Since everybody participates voluntarily, nobody can order the others around. The term *peer production* has been coined by Yochai Benkler (2006) to express this stark contrast to the hierarchical nature of firms: participants work together on an equal footing, as peers. And in contrast to the market, others aren't merely potential trading partners, but people cooperating with me in order to reach a common goal. Peer production is based on contributions, not on exchange. And while trade (exchange) tends to be a zero-sum game, contributing isn't. If I make a "good deal," it quite often means that my trading partner made a bad one. But if somebody contributes something useful, everybody wins. A world where producers have to sell what they produce and users have to buy what they want to use, inevitably creates antagonisms. One person's income is another person's cost. And an increased market share for one producer means that the others producing the same goods will earn less, hence producers are forced to compete with each other. The same conflict of interest as between sellers and buyers in general exists between employees and employers: the former want to sell their labor power as dearly as possible, while the latter strive for a maximum of labor at minimal cost. Benefit-driven production doesn't know these antagonisms, since fulfilling my needs doesn't have to come at the cost of your needs. On the contrary, peer production works so well because the participants help each other to reach their goals and fulfill their needs. Everybody benefits. Voluntary Production for Others ------------------------------- Benefit-driven production shouldn't be misunderstood as production merely for oneself. It is true that peer producers often begin by "scratching a [...] personal itch," as Eric Raymond (2001) put it; but at the same time, what they do is also useful for others. And people frequently engage not because of their consumption needs, but because of their productive needs: They contribute because they enjoy the tasks they are doing, because they learn something, or because they want to give something back to the other contributors. The fact that peer production is always production for others refutes the popular conception that without a market system, people would have to fall back into some kind of Robinson mode: Everybody would only produce for themselves or their family and large-scale cooperation would cease to exist. It's pretty clear that such a solitary way of production wouldn't get one very far. Another well-known alternative are centralized planned economies--the former "real socialism." In such economies, society as a whole functions like a big company. Management (the planners) decides what should be done, assigns the required tasks, and monitors that they are executed correctly. This alternative hasn't worked well in the past and doesn't sound very attractive: You are still a dependent employee (though now of the state) and must follow the orders of your superiors. Peer production, on the other hand, is production for others which is neither based on coercion nor motivated by monetary gain. Peers produce for others because they can, and because it is a way for them to find further contributors. The more people use the results of a project, the more potential contributors exist, since people who decide to join forces as occasional or regular contributors are typically already users of the project they choose to support. If a project doesn't share with others by coproducing for them, it endangers its opportunity to win new members. To distribute tasks, peer producers use an open process that has become known as "stigmergy" (cf. Heylighen 2007). Participants leave hints (Greek *stigmata*) about started or desired activities, encouraging others to follow these hints and take care of the desired tasks. Such hints, e.g. to-do lists and bug reports in software projects and "red links" pointing to missing articles in the Wikipedia, constitute an important part of the communication. All participants follow the hints that interest them most. This leads to an automatic prioritization of tasks (the more people care for a task, the more likely it is to be picked up by somebody). It also ensures that the different talents and skills of contributors are applied in a more or less optimal way (since people tend to pick up those tasks they think they are good at). And since everybody is free in choosing the tasks they want to do, participants will generally be more motivated than in a market-based system or a planned economy, where they have to follow the orders of their supervisor or client. The Emergence of a Commons-based Production Infrastructure ---------------------------------------------------------- Peer production is thus radically different from the "normal," market- and firm-based mode of production that dominates our society. Production is mainly for benefit instead of profit; and people voluntarily cooperate as peers rather than being part of hierarchical employer/employee or client/contractor relationships. Another thing that's different is the way in which people relate to nature and to the products of their activities. Under capitalism, ideas, products, and natural resources are usually treated as *property.* Property means the legal right to exclude or include others from using a good, allowing the owner to use, sell, or monetize their property at will. Peer production is primarily based on *commons,* therefore Benkler (2006) talks about *commons-based peer production.* Commons are goods which are jointly developed and maintained by a community and which are shared according to community-defined rules (cf. Ostrom 1990). Water, air, forests, and land were managed as commons in many societies. Free software and open content are a kind of commons that everybody is allowed to use, improve and share. But the relation between peer production and commons is not one-sided: Peer production is not only based on commons, it also creates new ones and maintains the existing ones, as the examples of free software, open content, and *open hardware* (blueprints and descriptions of physical items that everyone can use to produce, utilize, and maintain these items) show. All these projects contribute to a knowledge commons that can be used, shared, and improved by everybody. Peer production cannot just produce knowledge, it can also produce infrastructure and physical goods. For example, *community wireless networks* have formed in many cities; they allow everyone in their neighborhood free network access. Many of these projects are organized as *mesh networks*: all participating computers will actively transfer data, removing the need for privileged servers. Such self-organized, decentralized networks can create a shared infrastructure for Internet and telephony (cf. Rowe 2010, 2011); similar networks might supply people with energy or water. Community projects organizing access to water as a commons exist in South America (cf. De Angelis 2010). Open facilities for the production of material goods are emerging as well. *Hackerspaces* and *Fab Labs* are typically run by volunteers; they often have computer-controlled machines--including milling machines and fabbers ("3D printers")--which allow the largely automatized production of individual items or small series. If possible, the utilized machines are open hardware, meaning that their blueprints can be freely used and improved by everyone. Another goal is the creation of machines that can produce machines that are at least as powerful as the original ones, thus allowing Fab Labs to produce the equipment for further Fab Labs. In this way, commons-based peer production is starting to create the tools that will allow it to spread even further, at the same time starting to supply people with what they need to live. A Commonist Future? ------------------- Nick Dyer-Witheford (2007) has proposed the term *commonism* for a society where the basic social form of production are the *commons* (while in capitalism, *commodities* are the basic social form). As the success of commons-based peer production shows, commons and peer production go together very well. We can therefore expect peer production to be the typical form of production in a commons-based society. Commonism would be a society where production is organized by people who cooperate voluntarily and on an equal footing for the benefit of all. Some people may claim that such a society must be impossible because it never existed or because it is against human nature. But that something didn't happen in the past doesn't mean it won't become real in the future, and arguments about "human nature" miss the fact that people are formed by society just as well as they are forming society. Changing social structures also changes people's behavior. Nevertheless, commonism would have to remain an abstract idea if it didn't have the potential to develop out of the current social system, capitalism. New ways of production can only emerge when "the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society," as Karl Marx (1859, Preface) expressed it. There are two preconditions which I consider most relevant for the development of commonism: (1) Human labor disappears from the production processes, being replaced by automation and joyful doing. (2) Everyone has access to resources and means of production. Developments within capitalism favor the partial emergence of these conditions, though their full realization would make capitalism impossible. How these conditions change the processes of production becomes already visible in the digital realm, where commons-based peer production flourishes. But as argued above, it's unlikely to stop there. Peer production reaches beyond capitalism, by being benefit-driven and non-hierarchical rather than profit-driven and hierarchical and by obsoleting and destroying markets formerly dominated by commodity production (such as programming tools and encyclopedias). And yet, the preconditions of this development are created by capitalism itself. A paradox of capitalism is that human labor is its very foundation but also a cost factor which every company has to reduce as much as possible. Labor creates surplus value and thus profit, but at the same time, each company can increase its profit (at least temporarily) by cutting down the amount of labor required, thus achieving a cost advantage compared to its competitors. One way of reducing labor costs is outsourcing to low-cost countries, but in many cases, capitalists can achieve even higher cost savings by replacing human labor with machines, or by getting customers to voluntarily take over activities that formerly had to be paid. Until some decades ago, machine usage and human labor were usually tightly coupled, e.g. in assembly lines. But increasing levels of automation mean that more and more routine activities can be performed without any human labor. The remaining activities tend to be difficult to automate because they require creativity, intuition, or empathy. Hence modern capitalism is often referred to as a "service economy" or "information society," since most non-automatable tasks are from these areas. A related trend is the delegation of tasks to the customers themselves, thus further reducing the required labor power. Thanks to self service, supermarkets need fewer salespeople; online shopping and online banking avoid the need for salespeople and tellers altogether; firms like Ikea leave the final assembly of the furniture to their customers, thus reducing labor and transportation costs. But these developments also change the relationship between people and their actions. As an employee I work in order to earn money. But if I assemble my own furniture or if I browse the Internet for products I want to have, I'm interested in the *result* of my actions. And thanks to higher levels of automation, boring routine activities (which you wouldn't do unless "bribed" by money) are increasingly replaced by more creative and more interesting tasks. For such tasks, payment is a nice plus (provided you live in a money-based society), but not a necessary condition, as became apparent during the last decades to the surprise of many economists, when voluntary, benefit-driven peer projects started to spring up in all corners of the Internet. These developments are only possible because the participants have access to the necessary means of production (such as computers and Internet access). This precondition may seem to be a serious limitation of the free, commons-based mode of production, since capitalism is characterized by the fact that most means of production are concentrated in a few hands. It's possible to jointly produce software and knowledge where the necessary means of production are relatively small and already available to large numbers of people; but what about things that require huge factories? Once more, the productive forces of capitalism come to the rescue. The PCs and laptops of today are the progeny of the room-filling mainframes of 50 years ago. Similarly, other productive machines have started to become more and more accessible and affordable for individuals and small groups. Inexpensive, but flexible CNC (= computer-controlled) machines increasingly replace the huge and cumbersome large-scale industrial facilities of the past. The emergence of a commons-based production infrastructure is a consequence of these developments, which originate in capitalism but allow people to go beyond it. Challenges to Commonism ----------------------- But will commonism really be able to replace capitalism at some point? Aren't there areas where it necessarily falls short? Two frequently raised objections are the problem of unpleasant tasks (which nobody wants to do) and the question of how to handle allocation and deal with the limitedness of natural resources, if private property and money cease to matter. Unpleasant Activities ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lets assume a society based wholly on peer production, where all tasks are distributed among volunteers by stigmergic self-selection. What happens if there are no volunteers for certain tasks, because everyone considers them unpleasant, dangerous or otherwise unattractive? A monetary system forces the weakest members of society to handle these tasks--those who have no other options for earning money. Only cynics would say that's a good solution--but what is the alternative? Some of these tasks would probably turn out to be dispensable. If that's not the case, automation, reorganization, and fair sharing remain as solutions. Automation has had an enormous impact since the start of the "industrial revolution"--increasing parts of production have become automated in part or in total. But in capitalism, the potential of automation is limited by the height of wages. The less well paid a job is, the more difficult it becomes to automatize without extra cost. Therefore, the automation of many unpleasant tasks (such as cleaning) isn't worthwhile under capitalist logic. With peer production, the situation is different: If there are tasks that all or most people want to have done, but nobody wants to do, then the incentive to wholly or partially automatize them is very high. And since the automation of activities tends to be an exciting and challenging task, the chances of finding volunteers for doing so are much higher. If automation is impossible, it's often possible to reorganize activities in a way that makes them more agreeable. In capitalism, the working conditions for some jobs are very bad--for example, office cleaners typically have to work very early in the morning, long before other people get up. People cooperating voluntarily as peers would find different arrangements. Automation and reorganization can also be combined. For example, some Spanish cities employ garbage trucks with automated forks that can be remote-controlled from the driver's cab to automatically pick up and dump the rubbish bins. Hence nobody has to handle the garbage directly and waste collection becomes almost like a video game, making it easier to find volunteers. Activities that cannot be automated away or reorganized may become candidates for a pool of unpleasant tasks, out of which everybody picks a few now and then. If everybody (or everybody who cares) does a small part of such tasks, they can be dealt with without causing much trouble to anybody. Allocation and the Limited Availability of Resources ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The fear that allocation without money is an unsolvable problem mainly stems from a confusion between production for profit and production for usage, or benefit. I can *sell* a practically unlimited amount of edibles, but I can only *eat* so many of them before I'm full. The same is true for all other goods: every desire to actually use them is limited. The only thing that's potentially infinite is the possibility to turn them into money (as long as there are buyers). But that possibility vanishes in a world where production is benefit-, rather than profit-driven, and where nobody is forced to buy and sell anymore. Organizing production in such a way that everybody earns enough money is indeed an unsolvable problem, since there is never a clear end point where it would be enough. In a money-based society, money cannot only be turned in any other good (commodity), it can also be employed for making more of it, turning the money one already has into even more money one might potentially be able to use in the future. And money is a form of power, it allows influencing others, buying their labor power, and making them do as one wishes. The outcomes of benefit-driven production are instead specific benefits for the people involved--software, knowledge, food, energy, connectivity, mobility, care, shelter, clothing, etc. But it's not an unsolvable problem to produce enough food for all--current society is doing that already, it is only incapable of distributing it adequately, since those who would need it most are unable to buy it. Realizing other benefits--producing energy, mobility, care, shelter etc. for all--should be equally solvable once production focuses on these benefits rather than on profit. And peer production only works if you really treat the others as your peers, as equally relevant. Nobody can self-actualize at the cost of others, because the others aren't stupid and won't help them doing so--but without the support of others, nobody will get very far. This means that everybody's needs and desires matter. It's not a viable option for a handful of peer producers to build giant houses for themselves and then let the others worry about how to produce enough food in the remaining areas that may no longer be sufficiently large. Peer production is about finding solutions that work for all. In commonism, as in any society, decisions on how to use the available resources will be necessary. Is it preferable to produce food for all or rather biofuel, allowing some to continue driving cars after oil reserves have been exhausted? Should the energy supply be based on decentralized renewable sources or rather on nuclear power, whose waste will be difficult and dangerous to deal with for centuries to come? How to reconcile the interests of the users of a good, who want new production facilities, with the potential neighbors of these facilities, who might be annoyed by the noise? Anyone who understands how and why peer production works, will be able to imagine possible answers to these questions. But the most important thing is that they can be raised and answered by the people concerned--all of us. References ---------- - De Angelis, Massimo (2010): *Water Umaraqa.* URL: http://www.commoner.org.uk/blog/?p=241 (accessed 29 Apr 2011). - Benkler, Yochai (2006): *The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom.* Yale University Press, New Haven. URL: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wealth_of_networks/ (accessed 29 Apr 2011). - Coase, Ronald (1937): The Nature of the Firm. *Economica* 4(16): 386--405. - Dyer-Witheford, Nick (2007): Commonism. *Turbulence,* no. 1. URL: http://turbulence.org.uk/turbulence-1/commonism/ (accessed 9 May 2011). - Heylighen, Francis (2007): Why is Open Access Development so Successful? Stigmergic Organization and the Economics of Information. In: Bernd Lutterbeck, Matthias Bärwolff, Robert A. Gehring (eds.), *Open Source Jahrbuch 2007.* Lehmanns Media, Berlin. URL: http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/portal/articles/pdfs/osjb2007-02-04-en-hey… (accessed 29 Apr 2011). - Lakhani, Karim R.; Robert G. Wolf (2005): Why Hackers Do What They Do. In: Joseph Feller; Brian Fitzgerald; Scott A. Hissam; Karim R. Lakhani (eds.), *Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software.* MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. URL: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262062461chap1.pdf (accessed 5 Jun 2011). - Marx, Karl (1859): *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.* Progress Publishers, Moscow 1977. URL: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/prefac… (accessed 29 Apr 2011). - Ostrom, Elinor (1990): *Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.* Cambridge University Press, New York. - Raymond, Eric S. (2001): The Cathedral and the Bazaar. In: *The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary.* O'Reilly, Sebastopol, CA, 2nd edition. URL: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ (accessed 29 Apr 2011). - Rowe, David (2010): *Baboons, Mesh Networks, and Community.* URL: http://www.rowetel.com/blog/?p=124 (accessed 29 Apr 2011). - Rowe, David (2011): *Dili Village Telco Part 11 -- State of the Mesh.* URL: http://www.rowetel.com/blog/?p=1447 (accessed 29 Apr 2011). -- |------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- christian(a)siefkes.net ------- | Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/ | Peer Production Everywhere: http://peerconomy.org/wiki/ |---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 -- If one cannot state a matter clearly enough so that even an intelligent twelve-year-old can understand it, one should remain within the cloistered walls of the university and laboratory until one gets a better grasp of one's subject matter. -- Margaret Mead

1 0